Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port Huron council rejects ordinance to allow backyard hens after heated public debate
Summary
After two hours of public comment and council discussion, the Port Huron City Council voted 3-3 on a second-reading ordinance to permit backyard chickens; the measure failed for lack of majority support.
The Port Huron City Council failed to adopt, on second reading, an ordinance to allow backyard chickens after a tie vote Thursday evening.
The ordinance (No. 25-002) proposed to add Article 4 to Chapter 8 of the Port Huron Code to permit small backyard flocks. Proponents told the council the measure would support local food security and sustainability, while opponents and several council members said the city had not done enough homework before changing law.
Why it matters: Supporters said backyard hens can reduce household food costs, teach children about food sources and boost neighborhood connections. Opponents warned the change was moving too quickly, risked neighbor disputes and required more council study.
Public comment was dominated by residents urging council approval. Jody Parment, a Port Huron resident, said the ordinance would “bring something real, sustainable, and strength back to our community” and urged the council to “vote yes to change the ordinance to allow for backyard chickens.” Several other speakers — including Julianne Roth (Polly’s Place), Rachel Farquhar and Seth Carwin — described food-security benefits, low noise from hens, and cited university and extension guidance for containment and odor control.
Council debate focused on process and community input. Mayor Anita R. Ashford said she appreciated outreach but that the council had not had sufficient time for detailed deliberation: “I don't think this discussion is dead, but I don't feel that I can support it at this time.” Mayor Pro Tem Archibald said the item had moved “very, very quickly” and preferred more internal discussion before adoption. Council members who supported the ordinance pointed to written and phone feedback they received and said the draft included limits intended to reduce nuisances; speakers during public comment noted the draft ordinance capped flock sizes at five hens.
Votes at the final roll call were as follows: Council Member Archibald — No; Council Member Herrenza — Yes; Council Member Moserak — No; Council Member Peyton — Yes; Council Member Pemberton — Yes; Mayor Anita R. Ashford — No. The tally (3 yes, 3 no) meant the measure did not pass on second reading.
The failed ordinance can be reintroduced later with changes; several council members said the topic remains active and could return for further study. The council did not adopt any competing interim directive or formal study motion during the meeting.
Ending: The discussion generated extensive public engagement and split the council. Council members who opposed immediate adoption said they want a formal internal session to refine the ordinance and review complaint and enforcement mechanisms before bringing it back.
